About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
why now? i want to share a few things. one is that once we start implementing the law and the mechanisms started falling in place and in the first year we got 1,000 cases nudged and then results. .. the mechanism is one thing. the greeting that oxygen, the way we can breed of the greeting as space for rigging a plan and not be bastrop away. women who complain, stigma and retaliation. that is the part that probably would need to focus on. the other thing i felt was that it was really a universal issue. i, during my struggle in the last ten years, have probably read about every sexual-harassment case. and every country, i went to japan a month ago and there it was everywhere in the public place and offices. so i felt like this is something that we really need to a not divide up the world, and this is the part where women have problems and this is a part of the world that has the outcome. we will need to develop a bond of solidarity. when need to talk about our struggles. countries like pakistan, one case of a gang rape or something happens and then it goes into the media
. >> good evening. i'm the director of the yale law library and i'm here to welcome you to the library booktalk sister i want to thank the founders society for cosponsoring tonight's talk. tonight's program features logan beirne who is the author of a new book on america's first chief executive entitled "blood of tyrants: george washington and the forging of the presidency." this is very much a yale law school block. it began as a paper while logan was a law school student. the paper was written -- after graduation from law school in 2008 and working two years in a law firm, logan returned to yale law school in 2010 as a scholar and began turning the paper into the book that we feature tonight. appropriate laid we have the professor with those to comment on the book. professor is a highly distinguished member of the yale law school factoid. is the author of numerous books, monographs and articles, and several of his books have been featured in previous book club series sponsored by our library. according to a recently published study by my colleague, fred sugar, professor eskridge is
--from personal grievance to public law". the book describes what happened when 11 women joined the campaign to go into the un only to be attacked by there un managers. the case culminated in legislation by the pakistani parliament in 2000 that make sexual harassment crime. she is the chair person, and human rights and democracy streaming and research on news activism and environment. and based in washington d.c. at the national endowment for democracy. and over red light areas, released by oxford and forgotten cases. and in japanese have become popular among young pakistani women. and the doctorate working at the university of minnesota. please join in welcoming today's guest dr. fouzia saeed. [applause] >> very nice to be here and i look forward to the next hour of engagement with you. if you want to turn this off you can, at least up to the limit. i am going to tell you a story today and the stories in the context of pakistan, about one woman and also celebration of women in pakistan but it resonates universally, goes across borders. this is about a legislation we got in pakistan against sexual
don't have to pay, and diplomatic protections for the egregious violations of law. you can't take it to criminal court, but to the table to negotiate with those who tell you we're the only people, we, the jewish people, with rights in this land. these cold, hard realities of how u.s. policy grievancely harms palestinians are screened from the u.s. public. we bombarded, especially on television, instead, with dishonest rhetoric what is described as progress in a so-called peace process which extensively consistented of negotiations between near equals under the impartial gays of an honest american broker, all supposedly intended to create an independent palestinian state. i'm arguing that this is not what is actually happening. this is not what has happened for 35 years. what has happened is the continuation and the intensification and the reenforcement of the dispersal of the organization and colonization of the pal stippian people and their homeland. the united states, in fact, has never really operated as an honest broker between the palestinians and israel. i never talked to an
the audience. please wait until you get a microphone before u.s. to because of laws we will pick you up on camera. u.s. a question? down here in front. you have to wait for the microphone. and copley's to do as a favor. not accusing you, don't make a speech. as the question. >> my question is whether their is a real parallel between the argument for abolishing slavery and the argument for abolishing war. >> sounds like that's yours. >> the question is, is there real parallel? i don't know. the point that i was trying to make was i think every generation does seven things and italy. we do things that make us more -- morally queasy, but we think we have to do them. i would say that for our generation as for pretty much every generation before us, war is one of those things. again, ask for a show of hands. how many people think the war is a good thing and have many people think that war should never be used as a policy? >> we are then obviously all conflicted. i think if you look back on previous generations, to think that we can't morally understand how honest, sincere people could believ
, under secretary norman went in and froze the the 1981 bill that became law, that the reagan tax cut we are talking about earlier so it was a practical handle. the neat thing that you recount again five years later it didn't make a difference. four or five years later by 1984 there were 40 other organizations doing knockoffs of what the mandate for leadership had been. >> when i interviewed the president of other think tanks in washington d.c. brookings and c s i s and kato, i said what difference has the heritage approach to research made? all the difference in the world. the brookings president said we now do what heritage first started so heritage really, and i say that in the book, change the think tank culture of washington d.c.. >> one of the neatest things that i can say among all of you, 25, 30 years ago when phil and i were just getting our feet wet at heritage there weren't 600 people in the united states who knew what a think tank was. 600,000 people have voluntarily supported us. that is incredible. incredible impact. >> glad you mentioned that because there is no other thin
rush. one came from massachusetts, from harvard and yale law school. so was an odd mix. one was a politician, businessman, double dealer, self-promoter, who became the first superintendent of yellowstone national park. the sent one, whose father had followed the gold rush, was a soldier, a humble cavalry lieutenant who is also a self-taught scientist, brilliant man, phenomenal writer, who wrote the first great account of the exploration of yellow stone in 1870 that was haled at the time by the leading scientist office the day as the greates writings sip lewis and clark, and the third was the harvard and yale law school bookish hype ocon dry yack scholar, who became like men in the west, driven by fear, for a of the others he walked from independence, iowa to the montana gold rush. acted the politician and future superintendent, and like a lot of white men who settled there, he became an exterminationist. i think about the conversation in the earlier panel about the problem for historians out presentism. how you impose the moral assumptions and values of the present on the re
by will you -- must include the contributions of the transgendered? by law. you will have to have pages on transgendered contributions. people who were crossed over sex, or dressed in the other sex. clothing. isn't that absurd? isn't that totalitarian? i thought the purpose of the textbook was to tell the truth, not make groups feel good. but as i point out in the book, leftism is overwhelmingly rooted in feelings. >> host: dennis prager is the author. "still the best hope" is the name of his recent best seller. louis from florida, you're on the air. you're talking with dennis prager. >> caller: i'd like to ask mr. prayinger and his ilk what he just said about truth, why should people believe the bible when that's the biggest novel ever written? who believes the earth is 5,000 years old? how can you follow a book that tells you the world is 5,000 years old and hisclass commentary about the christian schools and the seminary, how does he say something like that and he wants to be honest? i know this man is a right winger, and he wouldn't fifth credit to anybody, but my main question is,
of a bank account or something, you know. if you think unilaterally the dictator for a day passed one law, what would you do? that's definitely a major flaw in the republican thinking. they assume we're going to be dictator for one day and limit government by doing that. in fact we're dictators for life and government gets bigger. to get to the spirit of your question, i think if we could reverse or somewhat change the relationship between the federal government and the states, i think that is the most lasting thing to serve to limit government. the vision of competing multiple jurisdiction of preventing consolidation of power is valid and valid in this century as well. the senates go hat and hand in washington asking for federal money. >> hi, spencer with the "daily caller" you reference the mythical permanent majority of the republican party. of course they disappeared. now we see a vision the establishment fading way. tea party segment is rising. do you think that is a permanent influence on the modern republican party now? if so give that is a grassroots movement is there anything you
human rationality. people do all kinds of really stupid things. we enact stupid laws sometimes that a lot of people agree on more because certain interest groups influence others. look at the gun legislation. yeah it's for the failure to enact it is driven by the economic interest of a certain small bunch of businesses but is that really why a huge number of other individuals who believe that's a good thing to do or wildly misinterpret the second amendment because they feel it within themselves. with regard to slavery and you jumped off from that, one of the things that became and has become clear to me the more i have delved into the world of the slave owner it's self and indeed the pre-emancipation north where it wasn't really all that different, is that a lot of people really liked slavery. they liked it. yes it was profitable but it wasn't always all that profitable and a motivator particularly in the 19th century was much of the south it was up into the respectable middle class to own a slave. it gave you a status in the stature that you might not have otherwise so why did
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10